As a follow-up to some deeply cynical speculation about the 94 Dems who 180′d on FISA, I’d like to add that some Democrats in Congress can apparently still find their spines.  That’s cheering, right?

Senator Harry Reid is supportive of efforts to strip the retro-active immunity from the new FISA bill.  This won’t keep it from shredding the fourth amendment, but it’s a step in the right direction.   Senators Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd have promised to do all they can to block it, including a filibuster.  They released a statement explaining their opposition to the current bill.  Via HuffPost:

This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name. We strongly urge our colleagues to reject this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation and oppose any efforts to consider this bill in its current form. We will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

Read the rest of this entry »

In March, the House passed an amendment that rejected retroactive immunity for telecoms that assisted the NSA in illegal wiretapping.  Most of us have wondered what happened to change the minds of 94 Democrats.  What happened between June 20 and March 14 to change 94 Democratic hearts and minds?

The answer might well be simple:  money.  Could it be that simple?

MAPLight.org has published a breakdown of contributions received from Telco PACS by the 94 Dems who experienced the change of heart.  [Maplight.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based in Berkeley, California. Its search engine at MAPLight.org illuminates the connection between Money And Politics (MAP) via an unprecedented database of campaign contributions and legislative outcomes.’]

Read the rest of this entry »

Have three of the Democratic party’s top leaders named Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Howard Dean decided they’ve had enough and want to make sure that with Democratic Senator Barack Obama now the Democrats’ presumptive Presidential nominee the still-looming — and potentially divisive — campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton is definitively short-circuited once and for all?

It certainly looks that way. There were two big bits of news last night:

1. Obama now has the winning numbers to be the Democratic party’s nominee and his win is symbolic in terms of ethnicity and an epic shift in Democratic party control from the Clintons to a newer group of Democrats.

2. Hillary Clinton’s speech last night that was cheered by supporters but criticized by many as graceless was peppered with continued hints that Obama’s win was not quite legitimate. Clinton had her chance to be a unifier — and passed on it. Which means that if Clinton doesn’t get the nomination, her supporters will feel it was stolen from her.

So now the big news the day after is that amid continued and accelerating indications that the Clinton camp is attempting to pressure Obama to offer her the Veepstakes, Pelosi, Reid and Dean are telling superdelegates to make up their minds by Friday on who they support.

The LA Times reports:

With the final primary concluded barely hours before, top Democratic Party leaders in Washington early this morning ratcheted up the pressure to force all remaining uncommitted superdelegates to make their choice of candidate known by Friday — and thus end the now hopeless, one-time frontrunning campaign of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The joint statement was obviously pre-planned and timed for issue shortly after Clinton refused to concede the presidential nomination’s victory to Barack Obama, who’s gained sufficient delegates to clinch the party’s nomination.
Read the rest of this entry »

It sounds like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s patience is wearing thin as she watches the the increasingly divisive battle between Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nomination unfold: she has issued a pointed warning to Clinton supporters about the need for unity ASAP:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Friday warned supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are threatening to take the delegate fight as far as the Democratic National Convention, that they are pursuing “a scorched earth philosophy” that would seriously damage the chances of electing a Democratic president in November.

“There is too much at stake in our country for us to be thinking that we can afford the luxury of intra-party battles eight weeks before the election,” said Pelosi, in her strongest words yet on the battle over seating delegates from Florida and Michigan. “We’ve had many months to have a debate, to come to a conclusion. And one way or another … we have to come together.”

Tomorrow is The Big Showdown when the Democratic Party’s rules committee meets in Washington to decide the fate of the Michigan and Florida delegations. Pelosi told the San Francisco Chronicle earlier in this week that if the Obama-Clinton battle isn’t resolved by then, she will “step in.”

“The American people have to know the Democratic Party can run its own delegate selection process … if they want to govern America,” Pelosi said Friday. “The rules are what the rules are.”

“Instead of talking about process,” Democrats now need to “talk about how we have a progressive economic agenda. … That’s what the American people want to hear about,” she said. “That’s how we can take America in a new direction.”

Pelosi responded to Clinton supporters who have vowed to take the New York Senator’s fight all the way to the floor of the convention - chaired by the Speaker.

“I admire the enthusiasm of those who want to take this to the limit,” Pelosi said. “But it will harm our party’s chances to win in November. Their enthusiasm is wonderful … but it’s a luxury I can’t afford.”

Pelosi stressed again that “a June timetable is one that we (party leaders) all share” to resolve the issue of seating delegates from Florida and Michigan.

Pelosi’s comments were criticized by at least one Clinton supporter:

USA TODAY’s Fredreka Schouten spoke today with Allida Black, a professor at George Washington University and co-founder of the WomenCount PAC, which wants Clinton to get the nomination.

“I thought it was undemocratic,” Black said about what Pelosi told The San Francisco Chronicle yesterday. Never in the history of our party have we precluded any candidate from going to the convention floor. … I’m an elected delegate from the state of Virginia. … She has no right as a leader of this party to say the party has to make a decision before the convention. That’s what the convention was created to do. … I don’t want Nancy Pelosi telling me who my nominee is.”

On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine Clinton’s camp completely ignoring Pelosi who will have a bit of influence at the Democratic convention in Denver: Pelosi will chair the convention and is in touch with many superdelegates. Meanwhile, both Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have asked superdelegates to make up their minds and commit by next week. So if the Clinton campaign wants to take it to the convention, it’ll be doing so as the party’s top Congressional leaders try to get a unified party show immediately on the road.

AP photo by Steven Senne

Between now and the end of the first week of June, this one word, STOP, and its many meanings will be weighed by many of the high members of the Democratic party.

TO PULL OUT ALL THE STOPS, means one would, in a project, a war, in love, in politics, in family life, in rage, in celebration, tear out or ignore all normal signals indicating that cessation ought be at hand; that one must bring all locomotion to a halt, that reason ought rule.

The ancient king, Midas pulled out all stops. He was rich beyond belief, yet beyond all reason he began to wish that all he touched could turn to gold. This was granted to him by the gods, and he pranced about touching everything in sight, delighted that it instantly turned to gold. But, then he touched his own little daughter who turned into a beautiful golden trophy. But, she was then incapable of humanity, mirth or love.

STOP AT NOTHING, means crashing through all barriers, exploding through all obstacles, do whatever necessary to take the battlements,

as at Troy, where household after household of women and children were murdered by the staggering, death-maddened soldiers

STOP UP ONE’S EARS, do not listen; stay away from naysayers, set aside all advices so as to not to be swayed or lured…

as Odysseus stopped up the ears of his sailors with honeycomb so they could not hear the Sirens singing from their island Anthemoessa, attempting to lure the sailors to jump into the waters to try to swim to the Sirens—but in treacherous seas that would surely drown the sailors before they could reach the island.

DEAD STOP, as in fallen; as in a sudden physical death, wherein the plant, tree, engine, person suddenly loses all energy,

like the snake-haired Gorgon, Medusa who in classical Greek mythos is said to turn humans into stone should they gaze upon her face. But she is brought to a dead stop when she falls into a heap as Perseus beheads her.

ROLL TO A STOP, losing momentum, or slowing momentum, going from accelerating to coasting, stopping down, so to speak, coming to a more graceful stop,

as did Odysseus as the lone survivor of the Argonauts. He had to face the whirlpool of death, Charybdis, a monstrous mouth which swallowed huge amounts of water three times a day and then threw them back up creating an enormous whirlpool. Odysseus survived by grabbing hold of a small fig tree overhanging Charybds’ maw, but his raft was sucked down into the whirlpool. Yet, as the water was expelled from the maw, his raft surfaced. Though ragged and torn, Odysseys was set aright, and slowly made his way home again

So it goes. Between now and the end of the first week of June, this one word, STOP, and its many meanings will be weighed by many of the high members of the Democratic party…. Which version of STOP each will follow or urge others to follow, remains yet to be seen.

__________
CODA
“Lysis” is the last part of a dream or a drama, a word psychoanalysts use for the resolution phase of a dream; what the ending points toward, or how the story ends. For now.

The photo is of the new digital stop lights, which save enormous amounts of energy over the single bulb lights still used in most traffic lights.

Arguments between national security advocates and personal privacy proponents have stalled the passage of a new FISA bill for months. One of the main sticking points has been proposed immunity for telecoms as endorsed by the Bush administration. Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has the details of how Bush may have “blinked first” on the immunity question so a compromise may be in the offing.

Bush seems willintg to accept a bit of a bloody nose on this in order to reinstate the necessary FISA reforms. If Pelosi still doesn’t budge, then the White House needs to start taking this to the people, working around the Democrats in the same manner they did last year when they stalled FISA reform for most of the session.

Will the compromise be enough to convince Nancy Pelosi to bring the question to a vote on the House floor? Read the entire report here.

ABC’s Jake Trapper, in a post on his blog almost written in dismay, notes how former President Bill Clinton is on now the hustings in rural West Virginia delivering a tough message that’s essentially divide-and-rule politics — the same he has delivered throughout much of the political season.

Trapper’s intro to the quotes nails the situation that is making the Clintons a political team that seemingly has decided to continue unabated to work to polarize their own party in order to generate poll turnout and then (presumably) plans to get in power and try to govern a unified country. Bill Clinton’s present campaigning and comments will likely seized upon as “proof” those who insist the Clintons (without proof) that the Clintons are really trying to lay the groundwork for a 2012 run, after a bruised Obama (largely bruised by the Clintons) flops at the polls.

Bill Clinton has the right to say whatever he wants, of course. But he’s a smart man. Brilliant, even.

He can do the math. He must know that it’s quite improbable that his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will be the Democratic presidential nominee.

So what purpose does it serve for him to barnstorm a state like West Virginia and tell rural voters that Obama and his elitist political/media cabal allies are mocking Appalachia?

He’s using the kind of language Democrats typically use against Republicans — as in, stuff you say when you don’t want voters to vote for the other guy under any circumstance.

This is tough stuff to walk back from.

Here’s one of Clinton’s quotes:
Read the rest of this entry »

Has CNN host Jack Cafferty and others criticizing China over Tibet and its human right record betrayed a “sense of superiority” and an often dormant “anti-Chinese racism?” Such is the conclusion of this article penned by Ding Gang, senior desk editor at China’s strictly-controlled state run People’s Daily.

Dang writes, “Harboring hatred for China’s development, the Caffertys of the world have assaulted, slandered, framed and spread rumors over recent years, and now they have finally - nakedly - come to the fore.” Beijing’s assault on the Western media shows no sign of abating.

By Ding Gang*

April 17, 2008

People’s Republic of China - People’s Daily - Original Article (English)

On April 9, when CNN broadcast the news on the Olympic torch relay in San Francisco, its host Jack Catterty remarked that Chinese products are “junk” Read the rest of this entry »

In terms of being the target of Beijing’s vitriol, House Speaker Pelosi has now joined such luminaries as the Dalai Lama and Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian. According to this ‘commentary’ published by the strictly-controlled state run Xinhua news service:

“If an Internet opinion poll were to be carried out in China to choose the most disgusting figure, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would probably be on top of the list. … How can such an irresponsible political figure not be detested by all Chinese?”

The commentary goes on to say, “Underneath her double standards lay a stubborn anti-China sentiment and uneasiness about China’s peaceful rise. Read the rest of this entry »

Have Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats done Colombia wrong on trade? That seems to be the general consensus in that country, Washington’s strongest ally in Latin America. For Colombia’s leading newspaper El Tiempo, Alfredo Rangel writes in part:

“Mrs. Pelosi has gotten her way. With her repeated rejection of the Free Trade Agreement, congressional Democrats are favoring the economic interests of a few U.S. unions and are sacrificing the general interests of Colombia under the pretext of protecting a union minority - the alleged victims of a State that has abandoned them. Read the rest of this entry »

Has U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ‘defied law and discipline,’ and ‘challenged U.S. government’ protection’ of the Olympic torch relay? These are just some of the latest charges being leveled against Pelosi by the Beijing regime. In this article, published in the strictly-controlled state run People’s Daily, her recent efforts to have legislation passed denying U.S. officials the use of public funds to attend the Beijing Olympics, “have left people amazed and speechless.’ The author, a scholar at Shanghai’s Fudan University, concludes, “This American stateswoman repeatedly asks other nations to abide by the law, but she herself interferes when her government makes security commitments. … Ms. Pelosi will only discredit herself and her own image if she persists in embarrassing China.”

By Shen Dingli*

April 14, 2008

People’s Republic of China - People’s Daily - Original Article (English)

The ongoing Olympic torch relay has drawn tremendous attention and the enthusiastic welcome of countries and peoples around the world. But there has also been a number of discordant voices, among which is the noisome U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Read the rest of this entry »

His Holiness the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is no ordinary Tibetan monk. His upcoming visit to the USA, the first outside his home in exile in India, can be considered as ‘historic’. There are speculations that the Karmapa, 22-year-old Buddhist monk, may emerge as the successor to the Dalai Lama in case the latter decides to step down, especially in view of the growing hostility shown towards him by Beijing in recent times.

More importantly, the Karmapa is the only major monk reincarnate recognised by both the Dalai Lama and China.

According to a recent BBC report: “India has allowed the Tibetan monk, the Karmapa Lama, who fled China and sought asylum in India eight years ago, to travel to the United States next month. The Tibetan monk arrives in New York City on 15 May, and then travels to Woodstock, New York; Boulder, Colorado; and Seattle, Washington, ending his US tour in the first week of June.”

The Karmapa website also provides the detailed schedule of his US trip.

The website mentions about birth and early years of the 17th Karmapa. “Prior to the birth of the first Karmapa, the arrival of a Buddhist master who would be known as the Karmapa had been prophesied by the historic Buddha Shakyamuni and the great tantric master of India, Guru Padmasambhava. Throughout the centuries, Karmapas have been the central figure in the continuation of the vajrayana lineage in general and Kagyu lineage in particular, and have played a very important role in the preservation of the study and practice lineages of Buddhism.

“In 1985 a male infant was born into a nomad family in the Lhatok region of Eastern Tibet. In the months prior to his birth, his mother had wonderful dreams during her pregnancy. On the day of his birth, a cuckoo landed on the tent in which he was born, and a mysterious conch-like sound was heard by many throughout the valley in which the family of the infant lived. In Tibet, such events are considered auspicious portents of the birth of an enlightened teacher.”

More here…

Although the BBC says that “the move is certain to enrage Beijing, which has put pressure on India to stamp out any political activity by Tibetan exiles,” I am not so sure. There is a flurry of diplomatic activity following dramatic protests wherever the Olympic flame passes through in the world…First there was a visit of Nancy Pelosi to meet the Dalai Lama in India…Then the US president spoke to his counterpart in China on the phone…And the wellknown stand of the French and German heads of state that they may boycott the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony…And so on.

China has not reacted so far although the news of the Karmapa’s visit has been in the air for some time now. The Karmapa’s US schedule does not in any way indicate that he would be doing much else than talking about Buddhism to the audience. But then this is no ordinary visit…And especially the timing of it…

At the abode of the Dalai Lama in India, the spokesman for the Central Tibetan administration said the Tibetan government in exile was “really appreciative” of India’s decision to allow the Karmapa visit. And with China maintaining a discreet silence, would the US (and others) be doing some behind the scene work to bring about some improvement in Tibet…And for the Beijing Olympics to be held without too much protest?

I must admit that I was of two minds after reading about Nancy Pelosi issuing stern warnings to Gen. David Petraeus regarding his (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s) upcoming testimony before Congress assessing the situation in Iraq. On the one hand, there was an element of common sense to it which held some appeal. It would be in none of our best interests to have military leaders putting a “spin” on the news from the war front just to serve a political master. But then again, Petraeus has thus far impressed me as a fairly straight shooter, unafraid to say things which might not play well with the pundits. As is so often the case, though, “common sense” as it appears to the common man is sometimes not final authority in matters of this scale.

That’s why I was rather confused by Chris Weigant’s glowing endorsement of Ms. Pelosi as The Most Impressive Democrat of the Week at Huffington Post. In his initial praise, he seems to support the Speaker’s choice to chide the General.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has had a good week all around. She’s been standing up for human rights in China, marshalling Democrats to challenge General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker next week on the situation in Iraq, and generally doing a bang-up job of keeping her House in order.

However, later in the article Mr. Wigant seems to back down from this stance. He discusses his disappointment in Carl Levin for pointing out that it is the President’s call as to when and how we exit Iraq.

I also considered Joe Biden and Carl Levin for being quoted saying essentially that there’s no chance of changing the situation in Iraq until there’s a new president in town. Levin’s quote: “Until there’s either a big enough majority in the Senate or a change in the president’s (approach), I don’t see a significant improvement situation improvement [sic] in Iraq“. This is indeed disappointing, but I’m filing it under “don’t shoot the messenger” because while the reality that Bush has succeeded in kicking this particular can down the road for the next guy (or gal), and while it is disappointing to hear Democrats say such things, I believe it to be an accurate picture of the realities involved.

(All Emphasis mine.)

Even speaking as an opponent of the initial invasion of Iraq and a proponent of a timely withdrawal, there are a few realities which I believe we need to keep in mind. Our military leaders do not determine the overall goals and direction of a war. That power is reserved for the Commander in Chief. And, like it or not, until next January that person is George W. Bush. The President decides when and where to go to war. A smart president then steps back and allows the military command to determine the best way to achieve those goals. Should a new person – for example, a President Obama – take the office next year and issue new directives to end the war, the Generals may personally disagree but it will remain their task to pivot and craft the best possible strategy to achieve those updated goals.

Yes, the Congress controls the power of the purse. In theory they could cut off funding for the war entirely. However, this would be political suicide and the Democratic held Congress has yet to show the spine or the tendency toward self-immolation to pull that trigger. Absent such a move, it is still the right and responsibility of the POTUS to set the agenda in Iraq. It is fine and proper for Congressional leaders to express their opinions on the war, along with what they perceive the attitudes of their constituents to be. However we may not want to be so quick to praise the Speaker of the House for trying to dictate terms to our military regarding their performance assessments.

In the event that John McCain wins the November election, Democrats and opponents of the war will be essentially in the same boat. Should they somehow achieve an effective super majority in both the House and Senate, they could opt for the “nuclear option” and cut all funding for the war. That will set the stage for a potentially disastrous showdown between the Executive and Legislative branches and, frankly, I don’t even want to speculate on how it will turn out. If the Dems are serious about ending this war, their best bet is to select a nominee and figure out how to put them in the Oval Office next January.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, an outspoken supporter of Tibet’s freedom, travelled to the north Indian picturesque hill abode of the exiled Dalai Lama to express her concern at the violence that has gripped Tibet in the wake of widespread and bloody protests there.

Ms Pelosi has strongly criticised China’s crackdown on Tibet. According to a news report: “Speaking of the violence in Tibet, she said the situation of Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world and that if the world doesn’t speak for Tibet today, it loses all moral ground to speak of human rights. Last week, she had issued a strong statement on China’s handling of the protests calling the ‘violent response’ by the Chinese police against peaceful protesters ‘disgraceful’.

“However, China has strongly reacted to her visit, saying that the Tibet issue is China’s internal matter and no country or person should interfere in it. The Chinese Ambassador to India Zhang Yang said that what happened inside china was no one else’s business.

The Times of London reports: “Officials of the Tibet Autonomous Region have imposed a news blackout, authorising only the state Xinhua news agency, China Central Television and Phoenix television to operate in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. Local media must follow central government orders. Across Lhasa, people were being required to denounce the Dalai Lama. From government officials to children, all had to stand in public and attack their exiled god-king. More here…

The Independent says: “In stating his readiness to go to Beijing, the Dalai Lama has made a canny diplomatic move. Beijing’s leaders can ignore it or denounce it as a stunt. Yet a bold leader would embrace it as a chance to draw a line under the stalemate that has paralysed Tibet for the best part of half a century.”

According to the NYT: “China’s violent crackdown on protesters in Tibet is having powerful political reverberations in Washington, where the White House is weighing how far to go in condemning the Chinese government, even as it defends President Bush’s decision to attend the Summer Olympics in Beijing.”

Meanwhile I chanced upon this blog…Have a look…

(Dalai Lama and Nancy Pelosi in Dharamsala,India,… photo courtesy Ashwini Bhatia/Associated Press)

You can watch the video for yourself. Since virtually no story favorable to Hillary gets any real attention in the mainstream media, this one may sink like a stone as well. But here’s the truth.

Other issues are addressed as well. Bush’s endorsement of McCain is very funny. If only he’d pursued a career in stand-up….

[youtube][/youtube]

Zenful6219 at MyDD has a summary of some of Hillary’s other foreign policy experience.

What does the emergence of a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama as serious candidates for the U.S. presidency say about progress toward equality in American society? While it is no doubt a positive sign, according to this analysis by Patrick Jarreau of France’s Le Monde, both the tactics of the Clinton campaign and the continued relative lack of women and minorities in positions of authority show that the United States still has a very long way to go.

“Confronted with the asset posed by Obama’s negritude, which is at once assumed and transcended, Ms. Clinton and her husband have tried, each in his or her own way, to send the young politician back to his ghetto … by dividing the electorate of their party, the two candidates could cause fractures that the one who is nominated cannot repair.”

By Patrick Jarreau

Translated By Kate Davis

February 3, 2008

France - Le Monde - Original Article (French)

In nine months, the Americans could elevate to the leadership of their country a White woman or a Black man, two “minorities” in the political lexicon on the other side of the Atlantic. The Democratic candidate for the White House at the end
Read the rest of this entry »

Political observers were as stunned as everyone else by Hillary Clinton’s win in New Hampshire, and are struggling the re-establish the frame for the race. Many people thought that Clinton would get major momentum out of New Hampshire, and it certainly didn’t hurt her. She narrowly edged out Obama in Q4 fundraising, got a bevy of positive media coverage (ironically enough, most of which related to voter backlash against the media’s prior sexist coverage), and is looking to reestablish her status as the “inevitable” candidate. Iowa is now just a blip.

But Obama is showing himself to be surprisingly resilient, pulling in a flurry of new endorsements. John Kerry was the big name (indeed, there are few Democrats in all the country who have a higher profile than the 2004 nominee). But Obama also grabbed three other intriguing endorsements yesterday: Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), Rep. George Miller (D-CA), and 2006 Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont. Johnson is important because he has a vulnerable Senate seat in 2008, and his endorsement shows confidence that Obama’s coattails will be a boost for Dems in tough election fights down-ticket. Miller, for his part, is a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who herself has pledged to stay neutral in the race for the White House. Finally, Lamont doesn’t have the political pull of Miller or Johnson, but he is a progressive hero for taking on sworn enemy Sen. Joe Lieberman, and could help solidify Obama’s credentials with the base, which still reacts warily to Obama’s conciliatory, independent-appealing rhetoric.

Today, Obama built on that momentum, snaring the endorsement of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (someone I’ve mentioned as an interesting VP candidate). Napolitano helps Obama both as a governor of mountain west state, a state bordering Nevada, and by cracking Hillary’s hold over high profile female politicians. And finally, powerful Black South Carolina Democrat Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) has announced that he is considering ending his own stated neutrality in the primary process in reaction to comments by Hillary Clinton that seemed to minimize the importance and role of civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King. Obama would be the likely subject of Clyburn’s support.

Folks have had questions about whether Obama possesses the raw political talent to hang with a seasoned player like Clinton. But so far, he’s run a rather impressive campaign, and this string of endorsements has really taken the bloom off Clinton’s New Hampshire boom.

An excursion via Memeorandum led me to

RightWingNews - The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States: The 2007 Edition

Funny, I’m not much like the folks on the list and dislike or disagree with many of them. I don’t even watch the TV heads (but I do belong to the ACLU)!

Listing all of the top Democratic candidates was not really fair of RWN.

What gift can you give to the people who have everything — or, rather, had everything until last November’s Congressional elections?

What kind of gift can you give them that will be a gift that keeps on giving…way into 2008…and right up until Election Day?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently figured it out and gave this beautifully-wrapped-and-presented gift to the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate and Republicans running for Congress in 2008:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lashed out at Republicans on Thursday, saying they want the Iraq war to drag on and are ignoring the public’s priorities.

“They like this war. They want this war to continue,” Pelosi, D- Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans’ ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters.

This just isn’t foot in mouth. In political terms, it’s foot in mouth that will end with her foot emerging out of her other foot.

Republican campaign strategists who seek to paint the Democrats as way out there must be smiling tonight. People can (and will) debate the accuracy of her statement, but in political terms it’s a wonderful gift (just think of what former Mayor Rudy Giuliani will do with it if he is the nominee as he continues to fine-tune his talent for political ridicule).

“We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference in the Capitol. “But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush’s war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress.”

Pelosi’s basic point there is well taken.

In the wake of the 2006 election debacle, GOPers, despite some reservations and fears for their political future, took a deep breath and solidly-backed Bush on the war and the surge, turning thumbs-down on efforts by Democrats to build a coalition to exert more Congressional control over the war.

There had also been suggestions that Republicans running for the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination might try and distance themselves from the White House, but they have increasingly firmly hitched their futures to GWB and the war, too.

Read the rest of this entry »

News today that members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, failed to protest when they were briefed about waterboarding and other harsh techniques of interrogation five years ago recalls the disturbing Milgram experiments of the 1960s.

A Yale professor wanted to find out how much pain people would inflict on others for what they believed to be a good cause.

“Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ strongest moral imperatives against hurting others,” Prof. Stanley Milgram reported, “and, with the subjects’ ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”

We still don’t know the answer to that question, which was originally raised in an effort to see behind the Eichmann defense for Nazi atrocities during World War War II, “I was only following orders.” But we should keep trying to find out.

Today’s revelation about waterboarding further underscores how dicey individual morality can become under social pressure. According to the Washington Post, “officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support.

“‘Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,’ said [Porter] Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. ‘And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.’”

Read more on my blog.